Senate Proceeding on Jul 23rd, 2009 :: 2:05:40 to 2:16:30
Total video length: 13 hours 40 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Views:35 Duration: 0:10:50 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

2:05:37 to 2:05:58( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: then senator kerry be recognized for a of senator bayh's time. the presiding officer: is there without objection. mr. chambliss: madam president, i thank the senator from connecticut for yielding time on this critically important issue.

2:05:40 to 2:16:30( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Saxby Chambliss

2:05:59 to 2:06:19( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: you know, as we have bn here debating on the floor for the last two weeks now, the respective issues relative to the priorities from a defense authorization standpoint, we've done everything other than going from increase in pay for our military personnel to the

2:06:20 to 2:06:40( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: termination o the floor last week and this week, the latest, most technologically advanced war-fighting machine that's ever been produced by mankind. but the decision was made to terminate the f-22. the f-22, not only from a technology standpoint, was

2:06:41 to 2:07:02( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: providing valuable test material for the it also is powered by two engines, one of which engine is going to be on the f-35. and here we are now talking about the issue of whether or not we should continue with a competitive second

2:07:03 to 2:07:25( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: airplane that now has an engine that is being flown, has been flown, has been tested by the air force on the f-22. and it has successfully flown on the f-22 for years now, and also has flown successfully in what limited testing has been done on

2:07:26 to 2:07:46( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: the we put all of our eggs in the f-35 basket. as i said during debate on the f-22, i'm a big supporter of the f-35. it's a great airplane. i know it's going to succeed. but we're at a poi respect to the cost of all weapons systems that we've got

2:07:47 to 2:08:08( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: to look more towards where we're going to be in future years from a cost standpoint than with regard to provide to our men and and when you look at items that need to be included in the mix from a competion s there is nobody that supports competition more than i do. and that's the reason that i

2:08:09 to 2:08:29( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: supported the second engine up to a point in time. but when it came up again year, it was pretty obvious that we were at a point where the engine manufactured by brad and whitney, two of which fly on the f-22, only need for the f-35, is a good engine.

2:08:30 to 2:08:50( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: it's doing the job. it's passed the test. so i decid we needed to move away from the spending of the money on the second engine and let's concentrate on providing, obviously, the two engines for the f-22 and the one engine on the f-35. now we have something else

2:08:51 to 2:09:11( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: thrown into the mix. i didn't support senator biden's amendment in committee for what i think still is all of the right reasons from a standpoint of do we need competion for an engine that is successful or an engine that we know is worki or an engine that we know what the cost of is today.

2:09:12 to 2:09:33( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: why do we need the second engine? i know detractors have they've made the argument to me that look, that engine may fail. something may happen to that engine. and i agree that for a point in time that could have happened. but we've been at this with respect to the engine that's powering the f-35, for years

2:09:34 to 2:09:54( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: now, and it is a success. so we reached -- i reached a point in time last year when i decided we did not need the additional competion from the standpoint of a second engine. obviously the committee reached that same result this year. now we're changing horses a little bit more.

2:09:55 to 2:10:15( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: instead of using the discontinuance of the helicopters, the marine helicopters, we're taking money from six c-130-j's to fund the competitive second engine for the f-35, and the competion is going to be between the new

2:10:16 to 2:10:36( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: engine that we've in production now for several years against an engine that we know to be successful. well, madam president, the issue has gotten even more sensitive to me because i know how critically important the c-130-j is to our men and women who are

2:10:37 to 2:10:57( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: in combat today. not those who might be going into combat and might need this weapons system somewhere down the road. our men and women in theatre today the c-130-j and on the c-130h's even that are old airplanes that

2:10:58 to 2:11:18( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: are in theater that are flying our men and women. and they are looking to get the new c-130-j's to help them transport themselves as well as equipment from one part of the theatre to the other, from outside the theatre inthe theatre. our special operations men and women are looking to the c-130-j

2:11:19 to 2:11:40( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: for the they carry out. and here we're going to say to those men and women, well, we think it's more important to have competion for a second engine against an engine that we know is successful than it is to provide you with the latest, most technologically advanced airlift capability that we can give you.

2:11:41 to 2:12:03( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: that makes no sense whatsoever to me from a national security standpoint. all of us have been to iraq and afghanistan at some point or another. i've been to iraq eight times. i've been to afghanistan twice. and when we go over there fly into either kuwait or into jordan country.

2:12:04 to 2:12:24( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: that country into iraq or into afghanistan. and wha have we flown on? what have we flown on? i would say not 99% of the time, bu transported into theatre, we fly on c-1's. and all of us have had the

2:12:25 to 2:12:47( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: experience of seeing date plates on into theatre where rockets are being fired occasionally at those weapons systems, and we've had some issues relative to that. but the date plates on those airplanes that we fly consistently

2:12:48 to 2:13:10( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: office or the 19 -- in the 1960's or the 1970's. today what we're asking our men and women to c-130's that are 40 years old, 30 years old or whatever it may be that are not equipped with the most technologically advanced weapons systems. and here we are saying to those men and women that we're going

2:13:11 to 2:13:33( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: to take away from you the entrance of decisional c-130-j's into theatre because we think it's important that have competition for a second engine on the f-35. this makes absolutely no comprehensive from either a fiscal standpoint or from a

2:13:34 to 2:13:54( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: national security standpoint. we have nine of them in this authorization bill. this particular amendment takes six of those nine out of the bill and pays the remainder of the funding on the second engine. that second engine is a great engine. it has performed magnificently.

2:13:55 to 2:14:16( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: but it's competing with an engine that also is performing magnificently. so to say that we now ought to take a weapons system like the c-130-j that our men and women depend on every si fly them around within afghanistan because they need these airplanes to land -- need an airplane that can land on a

2:14:17 to 2:14:39( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: short runway and the c-130 has that capability, to fly our men and women around in iraq, to fly our men and women who carry out special operations missions and have the guns that are mounted on the c-130-j to be transformed into a gunship, we're going to take away that capability and that need from our men and women to

2:14:40 to 2:15:01( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: fund a second engine for an airplane that already has an engine on it, that is performing well, that we know is successful, that we know much it costs today? it's not like we're going to see a reduction in the price on the engine of the f-35 because we

2:15:02 to 2:15:23( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: complete the testing and the procurement engine. that's not going happen and that's not the issue here. the issue really comes down to the point are we going to take in this case a weapon system away fund a second engine to compete with an engine that's already successful? and, madam president, i would

2:15:24 to 2:15:45( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: say that -- that obviously i felt very strongly and was very discontinuance of the f-22 for all the right reasons. but this is one of those issues that makes even less sense than the discontinuance of the f-22. we nee spend tax money wisely.

2:15:46 to 2:16:06( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: we've had the compe f-35. it's time we moved dow of building and procuring as many of those as we can can and with the rampup that this bill calls for under the direction of the chairman, we're going to be buying a lot of f-35's in a short period they have a today. it works, it's successful. that's where we need to concentrate.

2:16:07 to 2:16:30( Edit History Discussion )

Saxby Chambliss: that's we're need to spend our money. we don't need to spend the money on need to take out of this budget to pay for an engine that we're probably never going to buy. so, madam president, i would simply say that -- i would simply urge my colleagues to